top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 117 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (14 children)

Regex

Edit: to everyone who responded, I use regex infrequently enough that the knowledge never really crystalizes. By the time I need it for this one thing again, I haven't touched it in like a year.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You always forget regex syntax?

    I've always found it simple to understand and remember. Even over many years and decades, I've never had issues reading or writing simple regex syntax (excluding the flags and shorthands) even after long regex breaks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 61 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    PSA: Run ShellCheck on your shell scripts. It turns up a shocking number of programming errors. https://www.shellcheck.net/

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Thank you for this. About a year ago I came across ShellCheck thanks to a comment just like this on Reddit. I also happened to be getting towards the end of a project which included hundreds of lines of shell scripts across dozens of files.

    It turns out that despite my workplace having done quite a bit of shell scripting for previous projects, no one had heard about Shell Check. We had been using similar analysis tools for other languages but nothing for shell scripts. As you say, it turned up a huge number of errors, including some pretty spicy ones when we first started using it. It was genuinely surprising to see how many unique and terrible ways the scripts could have failed.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 54 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Clearly you don't write enough bash scripts.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Or scripts for basically any other variant of the Bourne shell. They are, for the most part, very cross compatible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    That's the only reason I've ever done much of anything in shell script. As a network administrator I've worked many network appliances running on some flavor of Unix and the one language I can count on to be always available is bash. It has been well worth knowing for just that reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 45 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I don't normally say this, but the AI tools I've used to help me write bash were pretty much spot on.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, with respect to the grey bearded uncles and aunties; as someone who never "learned" bash, in 2025 I'm letting a LLM do the bashing for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Until the magic incantations you don't bother to understand don't actually do what you think they're doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 32 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Ever since I switched to Fish Shell, I've had no issues remembering anything. Ported my entire catalogue of custom scripts over to fish and everything became much cleaner. More legible, and less code to accomplish the same things. Easier argument parsing, control structures, everything. Much less error prone IMO.

    Highly recommend it. It's obviously not POSIX or anything, but I find that the cost of installing fish on every machine I own is lower than maintaining POSIX-compliant scripts.

    Enjoy your scripting!

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 29 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    There's always the old piece of wisdom from the Unix jungle: "If you write a complex shellscript, sooner or later you'll wish you wrote it in a real programming language."

    I wrote a huge PowerShell script over the past few years. I was like "Ooh, guess this is a resume item if anyone asks me if I know PowerShell." ...around the beginning of the year I rewrote the bloody thing in Python and I have zero regrets. It's no longer a Big Mush of Stuff That Does a Thing. It's got object orientation now. Design patterns. Things in independent units. Shit like that.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    every control structure should end in the backwards spelling of how they started

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago

    I still have to look up the exact syntax of ifs and whiles.

    I've coded in bash for a while

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Today I tried to write bash (I think)

    I grabbed a bunch of commands, slapped a bunch of "&&" to string them together and saved them to a .sh file.

    It didn't work as expected and I did not, at all, look at any documentation during the process. (This is obviously on me, I'll try harder next time)

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    That's why I use nushell. Very convenient for writing scripts that you can understand. Obviously, it cannot beat Python in terms of prototyping, but at least I don't have to relearn it everytime.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    Wait im not the only one? I think i relearned bash more times than i can remember.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    Bash was the first language I learned, got pretty decent at it. Now what happens is I think of a tiny script I need to write, I start writing it in Bash, I have to do string manipulation, I say fuck this shit and rewrite in Python lol

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Maybe applies more to regex, the write only language.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Knowing that there is still a bash script i wrote around 5 years ago still running the entirety of my high scool lab makes me sorry for the poor bastard that will need to fix those hieroglyphs as soon as some package breaks the script. I hate that i used bash, but it was the easiest option at the time on that desolate server.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    And I thought I was the only one… for smaller bash scripts chatGPT/Deepseek does a good enough job at it. Though I still haven’t tried VScode’s copilot on bash scripts. I have only tried it wirh C code and it kiiiinda did an ass job at helping…

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Unironically love powershell

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This. But Pandas and Numpy.

    Pandas and Numpy and Bash.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    So true. Every time I have to look up how to write a bash for loop. Where does the semicolon go? Where is the newline? Is it terminated with done? Or with end? The worst part with bash is that when you do it wrong, most of the time there is no error but something completely wrong happens.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    It all makes sense when you think about the way it will be parsed. I prefer to use newlines instead of semicolons to show the blocks more clearly.

    for file in *.txt
    do
        cat "$file"
    done
    

    The do and done serve as the loop block delimiters. Such as { and } in many other languages. The shell parser couldn't know where stuff starts/ends.

    Edit: I agree that the then/fi, do/done case/esac are very inconsistent.

    Also to fail early and raise errors on uninitialized variables, I recommend to add this to the beginning of your bash scripts:

    set -euo pipefail
    

    Or only this for regular sh scripts:

    set -eu
    

    -e: Exit on error

    -u: Error on access to undefined variable

    -o pipefail: Abort pipeline early if any part of it fails.

    There is also -x that can be very useful for debugging as it shows a trace of every command and result as it is executed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    No, Makefile syntax is more extreme.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    Any no-SQL syntax for interacting with databases.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    Me with powershell. I'll write a pretty complex script, not write powershell for 3 months, come back and have to completely relearn it.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    i used powershell, and even after trying every other shell and as a die hard Linux user I've considered going back to powershell cause damn man

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    to be honest I agree and thought we would be using something more intuitive by now

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 8 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Bash substitution is regex-level wizardry.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›